Asia
Centre has been conducting a series of seminars and discussions to
review
India
’s Security environment in the Sub-continent. As a part of this of
Series, a seminar was held on
08 April 2006
from 10 A M to 1 P M on the topic “Recent Developments in Nepal
and their Impact on India's security” at the I A S Officers’
Institution,
# 1 Infantry Road
,
Bangalore
. The seminar was presided by Shri A P Venkateswaran, former Foreign
Secretary and chairman of Asia Centre.

The
presentations were followed by a lively discussion session. Nearly
45 Asia Centre members and invitees drawn from retired officers of
Indian Administrative Service, Foreign Service & Defense
Services, academics and scientists attended the seminar.

This report summarises the
essence of the presentations and the discussions that followed.

INTRODUCTION.

Lt.
Gen. (Retd.) Ravi Eipe, Director of
Asia Centre, introduced
the speakers in a topical discussion, the third of a series of
seminars on
India
’s neighbours. The first two meets covered the relations of
Bangladesh
and of
Pakistan
with
India
.

Shri
A.P. Venkateswaran, Chairman of Asia
Centre, introduced the seminar as the last in the series held by the
Centre on
India
’s relations with
Bangladesh
,
Sri Lanka
,
Pakistan
and
Nepal
.This seminar is held
at a time when the relations between
India
and the
US
have improved and a basis of friendship has been laid.Lt. Gen. Eipe introduced each of the four speakers in turn. A
brief account of the four presentations and the discussion is given
below.

He
had recently returned from
Nepal
, where he had met politicians of different parties, academics, palace
officials and others and discussed issues of both domestic and foreign
policy. He briefly reviewed the history of Nepal since the revival
of the monarchy, and the reign of three kings.

After
the accession of King Gyanendra, brother of the assassinated King Birendra
on
June 4, 2001
, the new king effectively marginalised the political parties. They
were partly to blame, being diffident in carrying forward the
parliamentary polity, which became discredited because of their mutual
mistrust. In the political space thus created, the Maoists gained
prominence by violent attacks against the unpopular regime and won the
confidence of the common people in the countryside whose interests had
been consistently neglected by the state.

Some
academics believe that the recently forged Seven Party Alliance (SPA) will
not last.

India has generally followed the same approach to
Nepal
as the British Raj. One sign of
India
’s neglect is that no Indian prime minister has visited
Nepal
after A.B.Vajpayee. This has contributed to the anti-Indian feelings
among the Nepalese.

Nepal is isolated in its foreign policy, in the view of some
academics. It was a wrong signal for
India
to supply arms to
Nepal
during this crisis. Many are critical of the
US
.
India
’s policy is thought to be ambiguous. In this circle, a wish is
expressed that
India
should take an active role in overthrowing King Gyanendra.

The
speaker listed certain options in
Nepal
’s future course. 1) A multi-party system, with a ceremonial role
for a monarchy shorn of executive power. 2) A multi-party republic
with no kingship. 3) The old status quo. 4) A Maoist takeover.
5) A polity similar to the Pakistani model. 6) ‘People’s
power’, with the Maoist insurgents ascendant.

How
should
India
react to the developments unfolding in
Nepal
? The vexing dilemma was whether to support the existing two
‘pillars’ of constitutional monarchy and the multi-party parliamentary
system concurrently or to let the monarchy collapse when the occupant of
the throne had been so recklessly plunging the country into chaos. But
developments were not in
India
’s hands. The links between the Maoists of Nepal and the
Naxalites who are terrorising civilians in several states of
India
are indeed a security hazard. It is impractical to close the open
border between
India
and
Nepal
over the length of 1800 km. Each policy option has its costs, its risks
and its possible benefits.

The
consensus among the Nepalese that is emerging favours the ending of the
55-year history of the monarchy and a reliance on a multi-party republic.

Maj. Gen
Dipankar Banerjee

He
sketched out the macro aspects and the implications for
India
.

1)The
Nepalese will decide their own form of government.
India
can offer help and retain its influence, but it will be limited.
China
’s influence has been growing since 1988.Its arms supplies strengthened the RNA.The Lhasa-Nepal road route has speeded up
China
’s access to
Nepal
.
China
has increased its control and presence along its southwest border areas.Tourism between the two countries has grown, along with a
liberalisation of visas.

2)The King of Nepal, with a loyal palace
group round him, became a hands-on ruler, concentrating power in his
hands.He had an antipathy to
party politicians.He defied
and antagonised
India
in 2004-05.But he has been
losing popular support.The
monarchy may revert to the role of a unifying force in the multi-ethnic
society of
Nepal
, and perhaps retain a religious role besides.

3)The Army (RNA), whose chief was an orphan
brought up in the palace, is a loyalist dependent on the King’s support.He had a stint in the
Defence
College
in
Pakistan
too.The RNA has relished its
chance for taking part in the UN peacekeeping operations over two decades,
finding it highly lucrative (Rs. 8 billions of transferred savings).It has improved the standard of living and welfare of officers and
soldiers.

4)The King could play the
China
card, but he is now on shaky ground.It
is doubtful if he can survive in kingship.Monarchical succession is not clear-cut.

5)The political parties are not a promising
basis for parliamentary democracy, since they are discredited and have no
prominent younger leaders to take over.They are against the Maoists, but disunited.In a democratic framework the Maoists will get in and this could
shift the armed struggle to a political struggle.
Nepal
’s Maoists are not like the Bhadralok communists of
West Bengal
.(It was Jyoti Basu who
eliminated the Naxalite insurgents from
West Bengal
.Prachanda, or Pushpa Kamal
Dahal, as he was earlier called, is the leading Maoist of Nepal.His plan was to downgrade the political parties.He may revive it, if the present Maoist agreement with the SPA for
a united front against the King breaks down.

6)The policy options for
India
will be determined by current developments. (i) The strength of the Mao-vadis
is in the countryside.Their
coercive tactics are resented.They
lack popular support for a revolutionary solution.(ii) They have no external support.
China
gave up the policy of supporting Marxist movements abroad after Mao’s
death.So the Maoists have no
significant Chinese backing.(iii)
The Mao-vadis realise that they cannot win by force of arms.So they have joined the united front with the SPA against the
autocratic monarchical rule with a 12-point programme (November 2005).(iv) There is a linkage of the Maoists with the radical Left in
India
.Our Home Ministry’s Annual
Report has acknowledged that in 2001, 76 districts in nine states of
India
were affected by Naxalite insurgency. Now there are 175 districts thus
affected, and parts of
India
are declared “liberation zones” by the insurgents.Some politicians are in league with them.

7)The European Union is pressing for Human
Rights to be observed in
Nepal
.The UN HR observer has
brought out some shameful instance of violations.The
UK
, the
US
and
India
had forged a common approach of not supporting the royal autocracy.We stopped military assistance to the RNA after the King’s coup.

8)The
US
does not like
India
’s recent policy of tacit support for the united front of the SPA and
the Maoists.It wants a
stronger drive by the King and the RNA to defeat the Maoists.

9)India’s aims, if intervention is ruled out:a) support a democratic, stable, representative government that
emerges, with sound economic policies contributing to regional prosperity.b)
Nepal
should not be used for hostile acts against
India
.c) Nepal’s hydel potential
should be shared cooperatively and equitably.Private enterprise is more likely to achieve results here than
state level treaties.Indo-Bhutan
cooperation could be an example, when
Bhutan
’s GDP goes up as a consequence.

10)In
early April,
India
’s options were poised between support for the royalty and backing for
the democratic movement.
India
’s attitude to the growing influence of the
Nepal
Mao-vadis was also in consideration.The role of other powers and the UN in
Nepal
’s evolution was another important strategic factor.

11)
India
will always have a defence role in
Nepal
.It is a touchy relationship.The extent of military assistance to the
Nepal
army in future and the training facilities to be provided to it must
engage our policy makers.The
army there is in desperate straits, with its stocks of ammunition running
low.

The speaker concluded that
India
lacked a clear and coherent policy for
Nepal
.

Nepal is important to
India
because of its location and because insurgency there affects insurgencies
in
India
.The people’s movement is
growing in strength, recalling its forerunner in 1990, when political
parties emerged from suppression successfully.The King has not learnt the lesson yet.There are three scenarios: 1) The King has his way.2) The King is forced to reverse the royal coup and re-introduce a
multi-party democracy.3) The
King is deposed.

India’s role:1)
India
must heed the invariant security factor in carrying out its
Nepal
policy.From British colonial
times, it was believed by policy makers that anarchy in
Nepal
would spill over into
India
.This has political, economic
and security ramifications. There are 10-12 million Nepalese in
India
(his estimate), among whom there could be those who escaped from the
Maoist hold or the RNA.2)
India
should avoid a situation where the
US
or the
UK
takes over the lead in
Nepal
.

The
Indian National Congress and the BJP have different approaches to the role
of the King.The latter sees
him as the avatar of Vishnu and
Nepal
as the sole Hindu state in the world.If
India
remains passive, the vacuum will be occupied by the West,
China
,
Russia
and even
Pakistan
.The last three powers have
refrained from siding with the democratic movement, holding that they
should not take sides in
Nepal
’s internal matters (as regards the role of the monarchy). Since
India
is engaging
China
over common concerns, we can perhaps discount Chinese interference in the
agitation for democracy.Prachanda’s
interview with The Hindu (
S. Varadarajan
,
February 8, 2006
) signalled a nuanced change in Maoist policy.

The
US
wants action in
Nepal
to curb if not defeat the Maoist movement, being convinced that the
Maoists are terrorists and communists who intend to take over the state.On the one hand the
US
appears to support
India
’s moderating role in
Nepal
, but on the other hand it has backed the King-RNA offensive against the
Maoists.

At
the recent release of the speaker’s new book on
Nepal
in
New Delhi
, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had expressed
India
’s wish that the royalty would play a benign role in the
Nepal
crisis.The King could
possibly follow the model of the Thai monarchy.The Maoists will however press for the restructuring of the state
along radical lines, not wanting even a constitutional monarchy to remain
in the polity.

In
this situation, it is time for
India
to wrest some initiative, instead of allowing the
US
to bolster its role in
South Asia
.We have to go beyond the
“twin pillars” policy and even engage the Maoists.The King cannot be trusted to pilot the requisite changes in this
context.
India
’s political parties have to reach a consensus on our policy.We should persuade the King to hold elections, not just to the
parliament, but also to the Constituent Assembly.But the King fears this bogey.

Discussion

There
were several questions from the floor which the speakers answered with due
deliberation.One question was
about Indo-Nepal military cooperation and our influence with the RNA.Major Gen. Mehta stated that
India
had given about Rs. 500 crores worth of arms to
Nepal
.But some RNA generals look
with suspicion on
India
.
Nepal
has some tribes which are pro-Indian, but other ethnic groups and
individuals who want to procure arms from elsewhere, (sometimes with
kickbacks in mind).They are
wont to complain against the effectiveness of
India
weapons.At the moment, the
RNA has no critical shortages.It
has doubled its strength in five years. Major Gen. Banerjee said that
other departments of the Government of India concerned with
Nepal
, apart from the MEA, do contribute their perceptions and wishes.The bond between the two armies can be built upon.

As
regards external influences on Nepalese developments, Major Gen. Mehta was
for
India
keeping a wary eye on Chinese moves, apart from the
US
angle, which may or may not be duplicitous.The
US
ostensibly wants
India
to lead, but
India
jibs at calling the Maoists terrorists, since they have indicated a
willingness to come into the mainstream as a party.Major Gen. Banerjee agreed that there is a divergence of perception
between
India
and the
US
.

To
a question if the Nepal Maoists coming into the political mainstream would
persuade the Indian Naxalites to do so, it was said that the Nepal Maoists
have made this tactical change, but may later press for their own
blueprint of governance.The
transition in
Nepal
may not be peaceful.Instability
is on the cards.

One
comment was that
India
had ignored its neighbours,
Nepal
,
Bangladesh
and
Sri Lanka
.We tend to react to events.The government in
New Delhi
now runs without a Foreign Minister.

To
a question on the ISI presence in
Nepal
, Major Gen. Mehta conceded that it had grown since 1990.It has been active in recruiting Muslims in the Terai and setting
up madrassas, so that, though formally banned in
Nepal
, it has agents to carry out some missions.It was stated that there are 2.5 to 4 million Muslims in this
region bordering
India
.Bangladeshis also settle
there.

Major
Gen. Banerjee said that the
Nepal
King had been miffed when the Indian prime minister failed to visit
Nepal
.It was only after the King
and the Prime Minister met in
Jakarta
during an Asean summit that a thaw was achieved.There was a question about the extent of anti-Indian sentiment in
neighbouring countries.Dr. S.
Pattanaik replied that in her estimation this feeling was more conspicuous
among Nepalese than in
Pakistan
and
Bangladesh
.
Nepal
being a small, landlocked country, (‘India-locked’, say some), is
sensitive about its sovereignty and resents the big brother attitude which
some Indians tactlessly display.
Nepal
is extremely dependent on
India
and values its cultural and religious bonds with us.Therefore it needs the traditional open border between the two
countries. Major General Mehta observed that the anti-Indian feeling was
mainly in
Kathmandu
, not in the countryside.It
is a love-hate relationship.There
was also some discussion on the
China
factor and
Nepal
’s importance for
India
as a buffer state.

Winding
up the seminar, Shri A. P. Venkateswaran said:
India
had been rather soft in its policy to
Nepal
, unlike
China
in its relations with its small neighbours, when security interests are at
stake.Secondly,
Nepal
should not be treated specially as a Hindu state, since there were
differences to be taken into account.Thirdly, the open border between
India
and
Nepal
does not work to our advantage.
Nepal
is not deterred from obtaining arms from
China
.Fourthly, the Maoists do
pose a danger for
India
.

We should be guided by reciprocity in dealing with other countries.If they are hostile to our interests, we should not remain inactive
or passive.But a clear-cut
policy on
Nepal
will need
India
to be firm where firmness is required to secure our basic interests.

Conclusion

Though this seminar was well timed to present an
informed and analytical briefing on Nepal’s political impasse between
the King, backed by the army, and his unarmed subjects, it was only later
(after April 8) that events gathered momentum to a crisis point in the
confrontation.Here it was
that the coalition forged (with the help of the Indian CPI-M) uniting the
anti-monarchical popular forces finally decided the issue.After days of wanton violence by the monarchical regime against the
agitating throngs from all over
Nepal
, when their unyielding spirit was magnificently displayed for all the
world to witness, the popular demand for the ending of the King’s
autocratic rule and the restoration of the parliament had to be conceded.At the last moment,
India
sent Dr Karan Singh as a special envoy to persuade the King to restore
parliament (
April 20, 2006
).But the message was
blurred, with
India
appearing to be still clinging on to the preservation of the monarchy in
the old form, while also accommodating the people’s demand for
sovereignty.The impression of
ambivalence was fortunately corrected almost immediately, for
India
came out in support of the people’s will prevailing over the King’s.Once the new government by a coalition of political parties was
recognised, with the veteran Girija Prasad Koirala as interim prime
minister,
Nepal
and the world heaved a sigh of relief.It was a near thing that the country was saved from chaos and
endless bloodshed.Indians
could hail the people’s victory in
Nepal
with sincere fellow feeling.

But obviously there are serious challenges ahead, which will sorely
test the Nepalese people and institutions.Progress is possible towards an election to a new Constituent
Assembly.Parties are taking
up positions on behalf of the people. The task of including all the ethnic
and sectarian groups in the electorate is not easy to accomplish in a
short time. As of early June, it seems likely that the elected government
will want to reduce the kingship to a cipher, if not abolish it under a
new constitution, since the people are clearly unwilling to experience the
possible reversion to a repressive autocracy aided by the army and the
security forces.

So
far, Prachanda and his cohorts have shown maturity in letting the
political process rather than armed insurgency determine the emerging form
of government.But the Nepal
Communists may lose their unity in the aftermath of the revolution, with
an extremist faction holding out for exclusive power, not to be shared
with the democratic parties.After
all, the present united front is but a tactical convenience forged against
the King.The parties may also
fall out over the spoils of power.So
too may politicians of the same party.It is not good that the Maoists have resisted the temptation to
join the ruling coalition.It
indicates that they may harbour a more radical agenda which may have been
shelved for the present.The
King himself may be waiting to pounce on such disarray to re-assert his
authority with a constitutional fig leaf, on the pretext of saving the
country from descent into anarchy.But
the Nepalese politicians are sufficiently wise to such tactics and will
safeguard their hard-won wresting of power from the royal usurper.
India
has a vital stake in ensuring that
Nepal
is not destabilised, but that it should build on the people’s April
victory.

In
Nepal
’s formidable challenges on the economic and social fronts,
India
can and should contribute to the gradual rebuilding of the country’s
institutions.
India
can help in almost all sectors of
Nepal
’s development, without fanfare or condescension, in a spirit of
co-operation rather than of a donor of aid.The defence link will be crucial for both countries.
India
must prevent other powers from gaining a predominant influence in
Nepal
.
China
and
India
can have an understanding on
Nepal
, so that neither has to suspect a hegemonic intent on the part of the
other.Similarly, our
diplomacy must be honed to keep vigil on the possible interference of
countries like
Pakistan
, the
US
, the
UK
and
Russia
in
Nepal
to our detriment.This is not
to claim exclusive influence in
Nepal
, but to propose a keen awareness of
India
’s basic security interests.

While
the Nepal Maoists may come into the political mainstream, realising that
armed struggle will not gain them political power, this favourable
scenario does not necessarily entail the Indian Naxalites following suit.
India
has to tackle its varied Naxalite insurgencies with a firm but nuanced
approach to the local realities and a sensitivity to the legitimate
grievances of the people which may have driven the rebels to battle the
state and sabotage its functioning.

India may have to renegotiate the open border with
Nepal
.No unilateral decision
should be taken in this regard.As
a first step, some sections of the border may be patrolled to prevent
illegal and hostile cross-border activities.The Indo-Nepal treaty also needs to be revised to reflect the
historical changes.

All
told,
India
has a favourable opportunity to re-shape its policy towards
Nepal
in a context that is now far less dangerous than it seemed as recently as
in March-April, 2006.We
should not lose this chance to regain the trust and confidence of the
Nepalese people, with whom we share cultural and social bonds unique to
both our countries.